* 




OJrtf 



P 685 
• W167 
Copy 1 



KANSAS AFFAIRS. 



SPEECH OF HON, HENRY WALDRON, 

n 

OF MICHIGAN, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

April 8, 1856, 
In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. 



Mr. WALDRON said : 

Mr. Chairman : I do not rise for the purpose 
of taking part in any discussion, relative to the 
right or duty of the General Government, as con- 
nected with the institution of Slavery. The State 
that I have the honor in part to represent, has 
made known her sentiments on that subject too 
clearly and distinctly, to render any additional 
testimony necessary in her behalf. Her people 
have, amid all the changing fortunes of partisan 
warfare, expressed but one opinion and main- 
tained but one position in vindication of the right 
of the General Government to prohibit the exten- 
sion of Slavery; and I do not deem it necessary 
now to reaffirm, by words, the convictions that 
my constituents have so often embodied in their 
votes. 

But I occupy the floor for the purpose of ad- 
dressing myself to the practical questions that 
are now before the House — questions that con- 
cern the interests of my fellow-citizens on the 
other side of the Missouri — questions that involve 
the peace and prosperity of a vast domain ; and I 
leave the discussion of abstract political issues to 
gentlemen whose tastes and inclinations run in that 
direction. My business now, as a legislator, is 
with the residents of Kansas — their troubles and 
their trials, their wrongs and their grievances. 
It is to these matters that our attention has been 
called by a variety of official communications, 
and they constitute legitimate subjects for our 
consideration. I shall refer briefly to the origin 
and nature of these troubles, and then cite prece- 
dents in our past history, that justify the imme- 
diate admission of Kansas as a free State, as their 
just and appropriate remedy. 

The troubles in the Territory of Kansas were 
the subject of an Executive communication to this 
body before it was organized, or in a condition 
to give it appropriate consideration ; and besides 
that message, there have been other communica- 
tions to this House, that disclose a state of affairs 
unknown and unparalleled in the history and 
experience of a Territory. It is disclosed here, 
in a memorial duly presented and referred, that 
N he residents of that Territory have been over- 



powered by the citizens of an adjoining State — 
that they have been driven from their polls by 
violence — that they have been denied their appro- 
priate rights and privileges— that an invading 
force has placed over them, and in defiance of 
them, a Legislature that is the creature of usurp- 
ation, and to which they owe no fealty. It is 
further charged, that this assembly of usurpers, 
chosen by non-residents, has given the form of 
law to enactments that conflict with the organic 
act of the Territory, as well as with the Consti- 
tution of the Union — enactments that are un- 
worthy of a free people, and a disgrace to an 
enlightened age— enactments such as no legisla- 
tors, who were the servants of a free people, 
would presume to pass, but which are the appro- 
priate instruments of men, who seek to oppress 
a Territory, and force upon it institutions, that 
its citizens justly abhor. 

And, as the result of this invasion and usurpa- 
tion, we read, in the memorial of a gentleman 
who comes here as the agent for the residents of 
Kansas, that 

" The will of men has been already almost entirely sub- 
stituted for the administration of justice." * * * • • 
"There seems to be no disposition, on the part of those 
who have seized upon the legislative power, to put in 
motion any system of law in the administration of justice. 
Trespasses, assaults, and murders, are openly committed, 
and no one thinks of appeal forredress to the law, because 
from that source no rediess can be had." 

And the same memorial, as embodied and en- 
dorsed in a report of a standing committee of this 
House, alleges — 

'■ In a word, menace, intimidation, and improper influ- 
ences, are rite in the Territory, especially along the bor- 
der; men's rights are held in no regard; official authority 
commands no respect, and seems to have no restraining 
tendency or power; and the peace of the country hajigs 
by a thread." ' 6 

And, now, how are these questions and embar- 
rassments met by the men who passed and sanc- 
tion the act organizing this identical Territory ? 
And here allow me for a moment to refer to the 
legislation that preceded the passage of that act 
Two years ago, a solemn compact was in force, 
that had fixed the character of that Territory, and 
defined its institutions. It was a compact entered 



onist 10 that of the United Slatt s. If, before they had put 
their Government in motion, they had presented them- 
selves here, and asked admission into the Union — the 
matter pf boundary out of the question — there would have 
been no difficulty in the case ; and if they wished now to 
become a member of the Union, and are content to come 
in at the right door, it is probable they will have no diffi- 
culty." 

But the select committee of the Senate to whom 
the matter was referred — and which, by the way, 
was Democratic in its composition, with a South- 
ern Democrat (Felix Grundy) for its chairman — 
reported a bill providing for the admission of 
Michigan into the Union, with the Constitution 
then submitted, and with only one proviso at- 
tached to it, viz : that the citizens of Michigan 
should assent to a change of the boundaries. This 
was the only modification insisted upon; and this 
"Democratic committee expressly refused to recog- 
nise the objections urged on the score of irregu- 
lar and revolutionary proceedings. 

When the bill came up for consideration, Mr. 
Ewing proposed, as a substitute, a bill which 
authorized the citizens of the Territory to hold an 
election for delegates, meet in Convention, frame 
a Constitution, and send it to Congress for ap- 
proval; and he urged his substitute upon the 
Senate, as the only proper and legitimate plan 
under the circumstances. Mr. Ewing's plan was 
the same as that now recommended to us by the 
Executive in the case of Kansas ; and let us see 
what favor it met from a Democratic Senate. 
In reply to Mr. Ewing, Mr. Benton said : 
"The object of the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Ohio [Mr. Ewing] was to turn the people of Michi- 
gan back, to consider as nothing all that they had done, 
and to require them to begin anew, under the sanction of 
an act of Congress, with holding elections, meeting in 
Convention, framing a Constitution, and sending it on to 
Congress. This (he said) was the object, and what rela- 
ted to the boundary was subordinate a^d incidental, 
which might be considered under the committee's bill as 
well as under the proposed amendment. The great ob- 
ject was, to turn the people of Michigan back, and make 
them commence in a regular manner, as it was called, in 
contradistinction to the irregular, disorderly, and revolu- 
tionary manner of conducting themselves, which had 
been imputed to them." 

***** * * 

" Mr. B. then entered into an ample vindication of the 
rights of the people of Michigan and Arkansas to meet in 
Convention, without a preliminary law from Congress- 
adopt Constitutions, and send them here for examination. 
Conventions were original acts of the people. They de- 
pended upon inherent and inalienable rights. The people 
of any State may, at any time, meet in Convention, with- 
out a law of their Legislature, and without anv provision, 
or against any provision in their Constitution, and may 
alter or abolish the whole frame of Government, as they 
pleased. The sovereign power to govern themselves was 
in the majority, and they could not be divested of it." 

Now, Mr. Chairman, listen to the remarks of 
the champion of Democracy who followed Mr. 
Benton in that debate, and who is entitled to 
most respectful hearing from gentlemen on the 
other side of the Chamber, for it was no less a 
man than the Hon. James Buchanan, then Sena- 
tor from Pennsylvania. Hear his comments upon 
the proposition to turn back the residents of 
Michigan, as General Pierce now advises us to 
turn back the people of Kansas : 

"He had good reasons for desiring that the bill might 
be very (speedily decided on; and therefore, in what he 
had to say, he should take up as little of the time of the 
Senate as possible. The first objection he uhould consider 
was the one suggested, rather than insisted on, by the 
Senator from Dulaware; and that was, that no act had 



been passed by Congress for the purpose of enabling the 
people of Michigan to form a State Constitution, in obe- 
dience to what had been supposed to be the custom in re- 
gard to other States that have been admitted into the 
Union. Now, was there, he would ask, any reason for 
passing such an act? Was it required by principle, or 
was it required by former practice ? He utterly denied 
that it was required either by the one or the other, befors 
a new State may be admitted into the Union ; and whether 
it was given previously or subsequently to the application 
of a State for admission into the Union, was of no earthly 
importance. He admitted that the passage of such an act 
previously to the admission of a new State was the best 
course to adopt; but, if a people had formed a republican 
Constitution, and if Congress should think that they had 
assumed proper boundaries, was there any objection to 
their admission, whether the preliminary law had been 
passed or otherwise?" 

******* 

"Ought they to be offended with the eagerness of the 
new States for admission into all the rights, privileges, and 
benefits, of this Union, at a time when some of the old 
States were threatening to leave it ? Ought we not (said 
he) to hail the coming in of these new States, our own 
flesh and blood, and, on account of the absence of a little 
form, not send them dissatisfied from our doors? " 
******* 

" He did hope that by this bill all objections would be 
removed; and that this State, so ready to rush into our 
arms, would not be repu sed, because of the absence of 
some formalities, which, perhaps, were very proper, but 
certainly not indispensable." 

The gentleman who closed this discussion was 
Mr. Niles, of Connecticut — a Democrat, who, with 
honorable consistency, maintains the rights of the 
residents of Kansas to-day as gallantly as he de- 
fended the pioneers of Michigan twenty years ago. 
In fact, his remarks apply so pertinently to the 
present case, that it only requires to substitute 
the word " Kansas " for " Michigan," to make it 
a capital Free State speech, as will be seen by 
the following extract: 

" Not being able to be admitted in the way they sought, 
th' y have been forced to lake their oa u course, and stand 
upon their rights — rights secured to them by the Constitu- 
tion, and a solemn, irrepealable Ordinance. They have 
taken the census of the Territory ; they have formed a 
Constitution, elected their officers', and the whole ma- 
chinery of a State Government is ready to be put in ope- 
ration; they are only awaiting your action. Having as- 
sumed this attitude, they now demand admission as a 
matter of right — they demand it as an act of justice at your 
hands. Are they now to be repelled, or to be told that 
they must retrace their step *, and come into trie Union in 
the way they at first sought to do, but could not obtain the 
sanction of Congress? Sir, I fear the consequences of 
such a decision; I tremble at an act of such injustice. 

" There is * point beyond which a free people cannot be 
driven. Why are the people of Michigan to be vexed and 
harassed in this way ? They feel that they are treated 
harshly — that great injustice is- done them; they have been 
opposed and resisted in every course they have pursued 
to obtain admission into the Union; and you have now 
divided their Territory, and taken from them a part of it, 
to which they attach great value. In these measures of 
opposition to Michigan, the Senator from Ohio has acted 
a prominent part. He has succeeded in opposing their 
former applications, and in keeping them out of the Union; 
he has carried through a bill to divide their Territory, of 
the justice or injustice of which I will not speak, but the 
people of Michigan regard it as an act of great injustice. 
Will the gentleman still persist in his opposition? jboes 
he wish to drive thatpeople to desperation — to force them 
into acts of violence ? Does he think that, by breaking 
up what has been done, by creating an excitement, and 
forcing the people to organize their Government »gain, the 
result may be different?--that it may be more favorable to 
a certain party or portion of the population, which, he in- 
sinuates, took no part in the proceedings in organizing the 
State Government? Whatever may be the object, such 
a course is fraught with much danger. Let us not pre- 
sume too much in the forbearance of the people under 
measures which, in whatever light we may view them, 
they will regard as unjust and oppressive. Who is will- 
ing to be responsible for an act operating on a whole 
people, with their passions excited and inflamed, and cal- 



dilated to rekindle the extinguished flames, and to pro- 
duce evils worse than the border war which has happily 
subsided? Miould the amendment of th»* Senator pre vail, 
a heavy responsibility will reist somewhere; and I tear 
a* much of it will (all on thtt honorable Senator as he 
will h .d it convenient to bear." 

And when the vote was taken on the substitute 
offered by Mr. Ewing, it received only seven af- 
firmative votes, (page 276, vol. 3,) and among the 
negative vote3 I find such names as Mr. Benton, 
Mr. Buchanan, Mr. King of Alabama, Mr. Grundy, 
and others of like fame and sentiment — men 
whose claims to Democracy cannot well be dis- 
puted ; and the bill providing for admission was 
ordered to a third reading with only eight votes 
in the negative ; and it was subsequently order- 
ed to a third reading in the House of Represent- 
atives by a vote of 153 to 45; and Franklin 
Pierce, then a Representative from New Hamp- 
shire, made one of the one hundred and fifty-three ! 

And here let me call the attention of the Com- 
mittee to the decisions of a Democratic House 
of Representatives, when the application of Mich- 
igan was first made to that body. I find, by ref- 
erence to the Congressional records of that day, 
that, in January, 1836, a member presented a 
memorial from the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatites of the State of Michigan; and this, be 
it remembered, was months previous to its ad- 
mission into the Union. It was not a memorial 
from citizens of the Territory of Michigan — not a 
memorial from the Territorial Legislature — not a 
memorial from any Territorial authority known 
to Congress — but it came from a sovereignty, self- 
organized and of revolutionary origin, according 
to modern political ethics, as expounded by the 
President in his message. 

When this memorial was offered, amotion was 
at once made u that it be rejected;" and a few 
extracts from the speeches on that occasion will 
best show the reasons why that motion was urged. 

Mr. Hannegan, who moved to reject the peti- 
tion, remarked : 

" The memorial purports to come from a power which 
neither himself nor the House could recognise. If it came 
from the Territory of Michigan, assuming no powers, he 
wou d willingly let it go to tne committee. In what situa- 
tion would this House place itself by accepting tliis memo- 
rial, coming, as it purported, from the sovereign State of 
Michigan ? It would be recognising her right to send her 
communications here as a sovereign State. If we accept 
one communication, we must accept all she chooses to 
•end us. There is something in this beyond the mere ac- 
ciptaiiee of the memorial.'' 

Mr. Bond said : 

"The memorial did not purport to come from.citizens of 
the Territory of Michigan, but from the Senate and House 
of Representatives of the State of Michigan. We ought to 
take care how we establish precedents of this nature. If 
the memorial was from the citizens of the Territory of 
Michigan, he would admit their right to have it referred ; 
but this memorial was not from the citizens of Michigan — 
it was from the Legislature of a State which had never 
been recognised by Congress. If there was such a State, 
it was unknown to the Constitution and laws. Let us. then. 
be mindful that we make no precedent in this case. Mich- 
igan has a Representative on this floor, and any petitions 
the people may have to present through that Representa- 
tive he would be ready to receive ana refer." 

Mr. Pinckney said : 

" He would have no objection to the memorial, if it came 
constitutionally before us. What does it purport to be? A 
memorial from the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the State of Michigan. He would ask whether there 
was any »uch Legislature known to the House? Is there 



»ny such State admitted into the Union? Can we recop 
nise her as a Slate ? Certainly not. Either she is a Ter- 
ritory or a Sta'e ? If a State, how comes it that she is rep- 
resented by a Territorial Delegate in Congress? If she is 
a Territory, how comes this memorial from a State ? Con- 
gress would be transcending her powers by receiving the 
memonal a* coming from a Slate. If we receive this 
memorial we need not attempt to treat her as a Territory.' 

Mr. Kinnard said : 

" He felt as ardent an attachment to the right of petition 
as any other member; he would not surrender, in behalf 
of his own constituents, its fair and constitutional exercise; 
and he would not vote to deny the same sacred privilege to 
any portion of the American people. But, in benalf of his 
constituents, he claimed the authority to distinguish be- 
tween the petitions of the people of the Territory of Mich- 
igan, and the illegal, unconstitutional demands of thr. self- 
styled Se.iate and House of Representatives < f Michigan, 
particularly, as in the present ca.^e, when those demands 
are not only in contempt of the authority of the Union, in 
derogation of the independence and vested rights of the 
State of Indiana, but altogether mischievous and inexpe- 
dient." 

It would reasonably be expected, after a peru- 
sal of the Kansas message, that its author would 
be found sustaining these gentlemen in their ef- 
forts to avoid any recognition of an authority in 
Michigan, such as he now so earnestly depre- 
cates in the case of Kansas ; but the record shows 
precisely the contrary. Mr. Pierce voted against 
the motion to reject ; and with him voted a large 
majority of that House. Mr. Hannegan then 
moved to amend a motion to receive and refer 
the memorial, by a declaration that the House 
" regard the same in no other light than as the vol- 
untary act of private individuals" so as to avoid 
any recognition of a State organization ; and this 
qualifying clause was adopted ; but it was adopt- 
ed with the vote of Franklin Pierce recorded against 
it. I submit, with these votes on the record, 
whether the President i3 not the last man who 
should arraign the people of Kansas, for their 
peacable efforts to secure a Government ? 

But, to return to the history of the act provi- 
ding for the admission of Michigan — this act rati- 
fied and confirmed the Constitution and State 
Government, which the people of Michigan had 
formed for themselves, with only one condition 
and proviso, to wit : that the people, through a 
Convention of delegates, elected especially for 
that purpose, should assent to the change of 
boundaries as specified in the act ; and, whenever 
such assent was given, the President of the Uni- 
ted States was to announce it by proclamation ; 
and thereupon, and without any further proceed- 
ing on the part of Congress, the admission of the 
State was considered as complete, and her Sena- 
tors and Representatives were entitled to seats 
without further delay. 

Under the provisions of this act, the Legislature 
of Michigan called a Convention of delegates, and 
provided for their election. The election was 
held, and the Convention met in pursuance of 
the law, every organized county being represent- 
ed. This Convention refused to give its assent 
to the change of boundary, and declined the 
boon of admission into the Union, on tbe terms 
proposed. The official evidence of such " dis- 
sent" was transmitted by the officers of the Con- 
vention to the President, and there, for the time 
beins, the matter rested. 

This Convention was held in the month of Sep- 



6 



tember ; and its refusal to give any assent to the 
change of boundary was unsatisfactory t*> a por- 
tion of the people. There was a party in. favor 
of giving assent to the terms proposed ; and that 
party demanded another Convention, and deter- 
mined to hold it. This last Convention assem- 
bled in the month of December, not held or elect- 
ed by virtue of any act of the Territorial or State 
Legislature, but originating from the people them- 
selves, in pursuance of resolutions adopted in 
their primary assemblies. Two of the oldest 
counties in the State, comprising a population of 
some twenty-five thousand souls, refused to rec- 
ognise the validity of this December Convention, 
claiming that it was held without warrant of law, 
and in defiance of the regular Convention, which 
had previously expressed the sentiments of the 
people. There was not a poll opened in either 
cf those counties, although they comprise, in pop- 
ulation, one-sixth of the entire number ; but this 
self-constituted Convention was held without any 
delegates from these counties, and that Conven- 
tion gave its assent to the terms proposed by 
Congress, and transmitted to the Executive its 
proceedings, as a compliance with the act, and 
as entitling the State to admission. 

Now, I refer to these two elections for dele- 
gates, because, in some respects, they resemble 
two elections in the Territory of Kansas, that 
have been the subject of earnest discussion in 
this Hall. The September election, like the elec- 
tion that chose Mr. Whitfield, had the benefits 
that the forms of legal authority confer, and it 
had the additional merit, that no fraud or vio- 
lence perverted or disgraced it. The December 
election, like the election that chose Mr. Reeder, 
was the spontaneous act of the sovereigns them- 
selves, done without the interposition or assent 
of the constituted authorities, but with an 
avowed determination not to recognise their acts. 
Now, it is important to ascertain which of these 
elections was regarded by a Democratic Congress 
as expressing the will of the citizens of Michigan, 
.and what rules they adopted as precedents for 
our action in this case. 

First, what did a Democratic President do with 
the proceedings of these two conflicting Conven- 
tions ? Did he presume to endorse one of them 
as the valid, legitimate Convention under the law, 
and denounce the other as an " illegal ,: and 
"revolutionary" assemblage? Did he make 
them the occasion of a special message to Con- 
gress, in order to justify one Convention at the 
expense of the other ? Not at all. General Jack- 
son met these questions with fairness, with man- 
liness, with dignity — with a desire to mete out 
substantial justice to the citizens of Michigan. 
He transmits the proceedings of both Conven- 
tions to Congress, and takes occasion to inform 
it that the first Convention " was elected by the 
people of Michigan, pursuant to an act of the 
State Legislature passed on the 25th of July 
last, in consequence of the above-mentioned act 
of Congress, and that it declined giving its as- 
sent to the fundamental condition prescribed by 
Congress, and rejected the same." 

He further informs it, that the second Conven- 
tion, that did give assent, "was not held or elect- 



ed by virtue of any act of the Territorial or State 
Legislature: it originated from the people them- 
selves, and was chosen by them in pursuance of 
resolutions adopted in primary assemblies held in 
their respective counties ; " and then, as indicating 
his own views as to the propriety of recognising 
this last Convention, he says that, if its proceed- 
ings had reached him during the recess of Con- 
gress, he should have issued his proclamation 
under the law, on being satisfied that they emana- 
ted from a Convention of delegates elected, " in 
point of fact" by the people of the State ; but, as 
Congress was in session, he deemed it most appro- 
priate to refer the matter to them. 

And it went to the Senate, and the Senate re- 
ferred it to the Committee on the Judiciary — a 
Democratic committee, instituted for the express 
purpose of investigating questions of law ; but it 
raised no such questions on that occasion. Like 
the Committee of Electtions in this€fouse, look- 
ing into the Kansas elections, it wanted facts with 
a view to determine which Convention should be 
recognised as binding and obligatory upon the 
people of Michigan; and in order to obtain them 
the chairman (Mr. Grundy) addressed a letter to 
several citizens of Michigan, asking them for in- 
formation as to the aggregate vote given in Sep- 
tember and December, respectively; and as to the 
true wishes of the people of Michigan in refer- 
ence to the acceptance of the terms prescribed. 
The answers to this communication were sent to 
the Senate as part of the report; and the commit- 
tee, concluding, from the facts presented, that the 
second Convention, with all its irregularities, 
truly expressed the will of the people, introduced 
a bill recognising it in preference to the first Con- 
vention, held under legislative authority, and ad- 
mitting Michigan into the Union by virtue of 
its act. 

"When this bill was under consideration in the 
Senate, it was assailed on the same grounds, 
and for the same reasons, that are resorted to in 
order to prevent the admission of Kansas with 
its Free State Constitution. 

Mr. Bayard said : 

"But it seemed to him that this bill, with its preamble, 
involved the most monstrous political heresy, which tend- 
ed, incidentally, to the adoption of a doctrine subversive 
of all regular government: and entertaining this opinion, 
as he did, he should vote against the bill. By passing this 
bill, the Senate would be sanctioning the most obnoxious 
principle, and would inflict a vital injury on the cause of 
Freedom. Mr. B. argued that, According to the provisions 
of the Ordinance of 17«7, which regulates the d sposition 
of the Territory northwest of the Ohio, and east of the 
Mississippi, Michigan had no right to form a Constitution 
at all, without the leave of Congrt ss. 

"He maintained that the Convention, which was held 
in December last, was not a Convention according to the 
rightful signification of that word. It was an abuse of 
the term. If the Senate passed the bill under the present 
state of facts, tuey were setting up a most monstrous and 
atrocious principle. He contended tlmthe first Conven- 
tion was legally and properly organized, being broughl 
together by an act of the Legislature The legislative 
power was the only exponent of the public will.'' 

And Mr. Preston said, in reply to Mr. Bu- 
chanan : 

"The sweeping nullification of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Buchanan] goes to the annihilation of 
the Government of Michigan— to the breaking down of 
all her solemn charters and engagements." 

Mr. Calhoun said : 



" He had said thai the movement of Michigan was rev- 
olutionary j that she threw olf the authority of the U Ion 
in calling a Convention togother and forming a Constitu- 
tion. In that we were at perfect liberty either to treat it 
as a revolutionary movement, as it was, in point of fact, 
or to offer her conditions upon which she might be admit- 
ted into the Union. His opinion was, '.hit the thing could 
he undone that was done , that Michigan could <;o back 
to her original position, and that she should come in Ba- 
rter the usual form, as did Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana. In 
other words, that the Government should have leave to 
erect herself into a Slate. 

" A. great question next arose — a question of immense 
importance : Had the Convention of December a right to 
assent to the conditions, and did it speak the voice of 
.Michigan? And had Congress a right to recognise its 
It was well known that the Convention, 
held at Ann Arbor did not represent one-third of the peo- 
ple. All knew, too. that it did not represent the constitu- 
ted authorises. Now, had Congress a right to admit 
Michigan upon such proceedings as these? Could any 
man conceive it to be a Convention of the people of .Mich 
igan? No.it was imposible. It wa- neither more nor 
.in u caucus, got up by party machinery. It was a 
criminal caucus. The Convention of December had no 
to supersede the acts of the Convention held in Sep- 
tember; and he entertained the opinion that those men 
■ might be indicted at common law, and, what 
was more, tliey ought to be." 

It seems, by this extract, that the residents of 
as arc not the first of our fellow-citizens who 
have been denounced as liable to indictment be- 
cause they made peaceable efforts to get into the 
Union. It seems that there were like anathemas 
hurled at the citizens of Michigan from the Fed- 
eral Capitol j but my constituents survived them, 
and, I presume, the citizens of Kansas will be 
equally b$ fortunate. 

I now tarn to the other side of the argument 
in the Senate of the United States — to the gallant 
i indication of the citizens of Michigan in reply 
to the extracts I have quoted Rbove. 

Mr. King said : 

"But some gentlemen, admitting this, insisted thai tie 
proceeding was revolutionary, and that to allow the peo- 
ple, in primary assem dies, 'to set themselves up above 
■" authority,' (to use their twn language,) 
I at the very foundation of our insti'utions. This 
[range doctrine at the present day. It was the doc- 
trine of the house of Stuart and of Bourbon, of Austria 
aud oi ;. It was the doctrii e of the Hoi) Al- 

: ll was the doctrine of despotism; it was n doc- 
trine long since exploded, he had thought, by all free 
(iovernments, punicularly our own; and if he thought 
there were any material portion of the people of the Uni- 
ites who entertained jsuch doctrines, he should feel 
as much real alarm as gentlemen had imagined they felt 
«t the proposition of the committee. The whole of our 
institutions, both State and Federdl, were based upon 
this 'monstrous principle' and had no other right to rest 
on. The debate had been a mo-t extraordinary one; gen- 
tlemen had conjured up frightful pictures, and then got 
ied at the works of their own imagination*." 
Mr. Buchanan made an elaborate argument in 
defence of the second Convention; and much of 
I cecli has a direct application to the present 
condition of Kansas. He says : 

' If it wen necessary to place the claims of Michigan 

nlher grounds, it might ' e done with great force. 

ose we were to admit tHat their proceedings had been 

-regular, ought that t.> exclude tier from the Union ! On 

it to act like statesmen acquainted whh 

story of our own country. We ought r.ot to apply the 

rules 6f abstract political science too rigorou 

It has been our practice heretofore to treat 

ant Territories with parental care, to nurse them 

i. when they had attained the age of 

nunhood, to admit them i .to the family without requiring 

rom them a rigid adherence to forms. The great questions 

■ ' are. do they contain a sufficient population? 

lave I i republican Constitution '. and are they 

.• to enter the Union upon the terms which we pro- 

>o-*e .' If so, all the preliminary proceeding" have been 



considered but mere forms, which we have » a ived in re- 
peated instances " 

And Mr. Benton sums up the mWs of the 
controversy as follows : 

"The people there had held a Convention,! their own 
power, to ace pt a fundamentd.1 condition of ;,.j r admis- 
sion into the Union. They have accepted the condition ; 
and th Objection is, that ihe Convention was-, lawless 
and revolutionary mob, and that a law ou^ht he made 
to suppress and punish such assemblages in fui re. Mr. 
B. would hold a proposition for such a law to be n e quint- 
essence, not of European, bul of Asiatic despot. m; and 
sure he was it would receive no countenance by ", e vote 
of this Chamber. In saying this, he spoke upom recol 
I ct on of the pa<-t, as well as upon a view of the (resent 
At the last session of Congress, all this de<ur> 
lawless and revolutionary mobs had been lavishe upon 
the Conventions, both of Arkansas and Michigtu, be 
cause, being Tenitones, they had held Convent on and 
framed Constitutions, without the authority of Congress. 
Our answer to these denunciations were the same ih i we 
give now, namely : 1. That they had a right lo do so i ut 
out our authority, and all thai we could require was.' hat 
they should send us their Constitutions, that we m 
they were republican ; and, 2. That these Terriu . 
several times applied to Congres- for an act to regulite 
the holding of their Conventions, which were always fc 
fused by the political party which then held the tupreri 
acy in this Chamber; and that to refuse them an act tr 
regulate the holding of a Conventi, n, when they askea 
for it. and then to denounce them for holding a ConvenA 
■ >ut law, was unreasonable and contradictory,! 
and -'injected otirse ves to the reproach both of injustice' 
and i. consistency. These were our answers then ; and. 
rJedj thai those who denounced the Arkansas and 
Michigan Conventions as lawless and revolutionary mol s, 
would find themselves unsupported by ihe vote of the 
Senute ! •' 

The result of this controversey was the passage 
of the bill recognising the second Convention as 
binding Michigan by its assent, and with only 
ten Senators voting in the negative; while such 
statesmen as Benton, Buchanan, Silas Wright, 
Tallmadge, Niles, and William It. King, voted in 
the affirmative. 

The bill then was considered in the House of 
Representatives, where the same objections and 
arguments were urged as in the Senate. But 
the bill was ordered to a third reading by the 
strong vote of 148 to 58; and a reference to the 
yeas and nays will show the name of Franklin 
Pierce recorded in the affirmative. 

Yes, sir; the President, who now regards the 
peaceable elections and Conventions in Kansas as 
'illegal/' and of "revolutionary character," then 
voted to recognise a Convention that was held 
confessedly without authority — that only claimed 
to represent a part of the settlers, and that assumed 
to speak where the legal Convention had already 
declared its determination. lie voted to make the 
decisions of that Convention binding on the peo- 
ple of Michigan, iu reference to the most import- 
ant interests that a Convention could ever pass 
upon ; and, having done so, I cannot realize the 
force of his recommendations in the case of Kan- 
sas, when they differ so widely from his own 
practice iu the case of Michigan. 

I have thus briefly and hastily referred to the 
circumstances that characterized the admission 
of Michigan. She was met, to some extent, by 
embarrassments and obstacles, but, in despite of 
them, she fought her way into the Union ; and, 
now that she is there, she is disposed to help 
Kansas in, with the same free institutions that 
hare been sanctioned in her own experience. 
And Michigan only regrets that statesmen, wnc 



8 



vindicatewer pioneers, and fought their battles 
in the CaMol, now strike their flag and ground 
their arnjjprhen the interests of Slavery stand in 
their wa« But it is a satisfaction to know that, 
though n may falter, principles never change. 
The docflpes thatwere enunciated in behalf of the 
rights (Michigan, are as sound to-day as when 
mortalas first gave them utterance ; and the pre- 
cedent#stablished in her history will outlive all 
the slptcomings and inconsistencies of their 
authe 

MrAhairman, every reason and every consid- 
eratijtof necessity that justified the admission 
of Mshigan, applies with tenfold force to the 
casepf Kansas, in view of the unprecedented 
lties that surround it, and which can only 
viated by its admission as a free State. 
Sf it be true, as now alleged, that the citi- 
of Kansas are traitors and revolutionists, 
thjfn it is equally true, that the citizens of Michi- 
were traitors and revolutionists, and Frank- 
ijfi Pierce, James Buchanan, and their associates, 
ere apologists and defenders of the treason. I 
;eave to the friends of those gentlemen, to justify 
and reconcile their record. That is no matter of 
mine ; but it is a part of my duty to deny and re- 
pel the aspersions that are cast, by implication, 
upon the settlers of Michigan ; for, when gentle- 
man attack the Free State men of Kansas, they as- 
over their backs, the pioneers of my own 
jf tate ; and, as a citizen of Michigan, regardful 
if her high fame and unspotted escutcheon in the 
past, I hurl back all imputations upon her order- 
loving and law-abiding citizens, while I also, as 
/a legislator, ask that the precedents established 
/in her history, may be made the standard of our 
/ action in this case ; and I make the appeal more 
/ especially to gentlemen on the opposite side of 
/ the Chamber, as these precedents come down to 
/ us with high Democratic sanction and authority. 
/ These precedents were made in the palmy, better 
days of Democracy, before it had degenerated in- 
to a mere organization to do the bidding of the 
slaveholder, and at a time when Northern men 
were not compelled to outrage sentiment at home 
by their bids to secure Southern votes. 

There are other considerations that induce me 
to ask for the settlers of Kansas that guardian- 
ship and protection which the General Govern- 
ment owes to its citizens. There are many in 
that Territory who were but lately citizens of 
my own State — men who have gone there to open 
a wilderness to prosperity and civilization ; men 
around whom the grateful recollections and kind 
regards of my constituents still cluster ; men who 
have gone there on a mission as high and holy as 
that which the Pilgrim Fathers undertook when 
they shaped their course for the rock of Plym- 
outh ; for they go there to plant the institutions 
of Freedom, and to lay broad and deep the found- 
ations of a free State, where the curse of op- 
pression never shall enter as a blight and a 
mildew. 



These men have breathed the free air of the 
Northwest from their childhood — they have ex- 
perienced the blessings that flow from the policy 
of Slavery prohibition — they have witnessed 
changes and progress in the Northwest Territory, 
such as no other section of our Union can boast 
of — they have, in the space of one generation, 
seen the wilderness reclaimed and subdued, and, 
under the genial influences of free institutions, 
become strong and powerful in all the elements 
that constitute true national greatness ; and they 
realize that, for this onward career in the pathway 
of progress, they are indebted mainly to the wis- 
dom and patriotism of the statesmen who enacted 
the Ordinance of 1787, which made labor honor- 
able, and proved to them a shield and a barrier 
against the incursions of Slavery. They regard 
that Ordinance as the corner-stone of their pros- 
perity; and having realized in their own experi- 
ence these benefits, and appreciating their origin, 
they naturally demand for themselves and their 
children the same guarantees of prosperity, in 
the new homes they make in the wilderness. 

For such purposes, and with such motives, have 
hundreds gone to the Territory of Kansas from 
my own State, and hundreds more are preparing 
to follow. They disclaim any intention of inva- 
ding the rights of others ; but they know their 
own, and will not be slow to maintain them. 
They go there, not as transient trespassers for an 
unlawful purpose, but with a determination to 
cast their lot and link their fortunes with its fu- 
ture destinies. And I assure members. of this 
House, that when the attempt is made to " sub- 
due " them, it will be found that they value life 
less than the rights of freemen. Of that fact, gen- 
tlemen, an incident of the past winter is conclu- 
sive evidence ; there are now blood-stains on the 
soil of Kansas, marking the spot where one of its 
pioneers sacrificed life in defence of his rights — 
a man from my own district, who took with him 
qualities and virtues that would rendei him an 
acquisition to any land. He was overpowered 
and murdered by numbers, for no other crime 
than that he loved Freedom better than Slavery ; 
and his blood, from that day to this, has called 
in vain upon your officials, for the vengeance of 
the law. His manly bearing in the hour of con- 
flict was worthy of the cause for which he suf- 
fered, and is an earnest of the temper and char- 
acter of those who follow him. They may be 
overpowered, but they never surrender ; and, 
when invading forces attempt to wrest from them 
the right of self-government, or impose upon them 
institutions against their will, they will meet the 
issue as becomes men who were born and nurtur- 
ed amid the institutions of Freedom ; and, when 
aggressions and usurpations present to them the 
alternatives of slavery or blood, they will fall, like 
Brown of Leavenworth, with their faces to the 
foe, and their blood, like the blood of martyrs, 
will be the seed of Freedom, yielding, in no distant 
future, a glorious return. 



BUELL Sc BLANCHARD, PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




016 094 451 1 # 



Conservation Resource* 



